Sunday, March 28, 2010

El Inglés returns to the topic of a possible culturally enriched civil war in the UK during the not-so-distant future, and speculates about some of the characteristics and constraints that are likely to apply to such a conflict.

Reflections on the Civil War in Britainby El Inglés

Given the obvious and apparently unalterable trajectory that Britain is charting towards violent conflict between the historic British people and our Muslim fifth column, it might be interesting to indulge in a little harmless futurology with respect to the likely characteristics of this conflict. The idle speculation that makes up the content of this essay is hereby offered up by a playful mind with, perhaps, too little to gainfully occupy it.

If the historic British people (hereafter referred to as HBP) and the Muslim fifth column (hereafter referred to as MFC) contaminating their country ever do descend into a Troubles-style conflict writ large across the whole of the United Kingdom, it is certain that the conflict will be highly asymmetric in nature. I do not imply by this that it will be a particularly close parallel of any classic asymmetric conflict, such as those in Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Malaya. Rather, I imply simply that the characteristics, strengths, weaknesses, and geographical dispositions of the two sides are so different as to preclude the possibility of them bringing to bear on each other the same types of violence with the same objectives. This point will become clearer as we proceed through the essay.

In the interests of imposing order on a subject matter that lends itself to disorderly rambling, I will organize this essay thematically. Each section will pick a specific theme and consider, as seems appropriate, the relative advantages and disadvantages of HBP and MFC in each regard.

Size

The UK currently has a Muslim population of approximately 2.4 million. Let us assume, conservatively, that 5% of this population is supportive of terrorist attacks against the British state and people by believers residing within it. This equates to 120,000 people who might be prepared to support, more or less directly, an attack of this sort.

In comparison, the UK has a total population of 61 million people, of whom approximately 90%, or 54.9 million, can be considered white British. If a mere 1% of these people were to be supportive of terrorist attacks of some sort on the Muslim population of the UK, then we would already have some 549,000 white Britons in this category. A brief ‘exchange’ of terrorist actions between these two subsets of their relative populations would undoubtedly polarize the political situation, increasing the size of both terrorism-supporting groups, to an extent not amenable to being solved by any purely political means at all. As and when such natives minorities emerge and start to occupy themselves with their political agendas, we will be in a hard game indeed.

MI5, the British domestic security service, has repeatedly claimed to be stretched to the limit by the very real threat of Muslim terrorism. One is reluctant to believe everything people in such services say in public statements, but it does seem to be the case that the reason Mohammed Siddique Khan, ringleader of the 7/7 London bombers, was not put under continued surveillance was that there were simply not sufficient resources to do so, despite existing concerns about him. Given the massive growth in the Muslim terrorist threat in the UK in the last few years, and given further that any branch of government will be afforded resources roughly commensurate to the tasks it must undertake, it seems likely that MI5 will indeed have been struggling to make its budget cover the rapidly emerging Islamic threat.

Of course, budgets can be increased. But organizations cannot be usefully or speedily expanded simply by throwing money at them. An organization like MI5 must grow organically, screening and training new staff and incorporating them into its operational structure. Accordingly, the rate at which it can grow will be limited quite irrespective of the financial limitations imposed upon it.

Now imagine a state of affairs in which 549,000 people, amongst a population a hundred times as large, support in some fashion the use of violence by non-state actors against the UK Muslim population or some part thereof, and some smaller subset become involved in actively planning and attempting to carry out such attacks. Such a development would instantly dwarf the ability of MI5 and Special Branch to keep track of even a small fraction of the terrorist violence being plotted throughout the entire country, and this would be true as long as the conflict raged, as there is no conceivable way that these services could increase their capacity by a factor of, say, 50, to keep up with an entirely plausible (indeed, laughably conservative) 50-fold rise in the amount of tribal violence between MFC and HBP.

Geographic Distribution

This is, apart from size, arguably the single greatest asymmetry in the looming conflict. MFC is overwhelmingly concentrated in urban areas, most obviously London, the West Midlands, and the North of England. HBP on the other hand, have, unsurprisingly, a strong presence throughout the entire country, and are the only occupants of rural Britain to all intents and purposes. This situation has many and varied implications. I will discuss them mainly from the Muslim point of view, HBP’s advantages and disadvantages being implicit in the reverse position.- - - - - - - - -

1.

The urban concentration of Muslims gives them a high chance of being able to obtain some sort of local dominance in key areas. How long this dominance lasts is another question, but it is probable that certain areas will hemorrhage non-Muslims fairly rapidly.

2.

The urban concentration of Muslims and the consequent urban nature of the battlefield (no Muslims, no battle) gives Muslim an advantage of sorts in that their ‘forces’ are all close at hand and their lines of communication short. In any serious breakdown of civil order, however, during which it becomes dangerous to be identified as the enemy outside one’s own territory, this will effectively trap Muslims in small urban enclaves from which they cannot easily escape, with all accompanying psychological and logistical pressures.

3.

At least in its early stages, the conflict will still be at least somewhat amenable to being constrained by regular law enforcement activities. Urban areas are so saturated with CCTV cameras and will have such a short police response time that great risks will be taken by those who engage in paramilitary activity in these areas at first, be they Muslim or British.

4.

The urban concentration of Muslims and the drastically reduced general mobility they will suffer when things start to get ‘hot’ will be a huge disadvantage. Curfews; house-to-house sweeps looking for weapons, explosives, and wanted individuals; aerial surveillance; all of these things will be much easier for the apparatus of state to perform on Muslims than on their opponents, who will be a) naturally dominant in more rural areas and b) able to move around there with little suspicion. Only very rarely does one encounter a cultural enricher whilst strolling England’s leafy pathways, and their sudden presence there will not go unresponded to in the event of unpleasantness between them and the British, by state or non-state actors.

5.

Muslim enclaves cannot be considered self-sufficient in any way, shape, or form. Food, water, medical supplies, and power must all be provided, albeit in different ways, from outside. Any or all of these supply routes can, in principle, be cut. Rubbish collection can be disrupted; mobile phone masts can be shut down or signals jammed; phone lines can be cut. All Muslim areas will be subject to these pressures should conflict break out; British areas will not be subject to them at all except insofar as they are adjacent to Muslims areas. Furthermore, the technical expertise required to build and maintain infrastructure of this sort lies overwhelmingly in the hands of the British.

6.

A significant majority of the land mass of the United Kingdom has virtually no Muslims in it at all. This will provide the British with a huge area of operations in which to train, drill, experiment with firearms and explosives, and also with plentiful opportunities to meet and plan in areas where both technical and physical surveillance on the part of the police/security services are hard to conduct.

7.

Muslim enclaves are likely to expand, or at least consolidate, as ethno-religious cleansing forces both Muslims and British to retreat from certain areas in favour of others. This will simplify the situation for all actors and entrench the psychological divide.

People in Positions of Power

MFC has, thankfully, relatively low concentrations of people in professions which would provide privileged access of the sort that would be useful to would-be terrorists. Policemen, politicians, military personnel, civil servants, and the like: any such figure in a position to aid and abet any sort of terrorist organization would be worth his weight in gold to it.

Such figures are, of course, to be found overwhelmingly among HBP, and will likely prove to be recruitment targets for any underground organization which finds itself to be sufficiently underwhelmed by MFC to decide to try and attack it in some fashion. Even something as straightforward as an illicit flow of reliable intelligence as to the whereabouts and/or routines or potential targets in the Muslim community would massively increase the effectiveness of such organizations, for whom intelligence-gathering will be difficult due to the tribal nature of the conflict and the difficulties of infiltrating enemy groups.

The degree of intellectual and ideological corruption that swathes of our apparatus of state now labour under notwithstanding, there must still be high concentrations of people in the military, the police, and the civil service who are appalled at what the cancer of Islam is doing to their country, and who will eventually end up being well-disposed to those who would strike back against Islam on British soil. This will become all the truer if Muslims target the police or military on British soil, which they have already tried to do and will almost certainly try to do again in the event of serious conflict. The collusion of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army in at least some loyalist paramilitary attacks on republican targets during the Troubles is well known (though the scope of such collusion is still controversial).

Dispositions/Sympathies of Police, Military, and Ex-Military

Following on from the previous section, the British police are, for reasons I will not pretend to understand, perpetually trying to increase the representation of ethnic minorities within the force. Thankfully, these efforts seem to be doomed to failure, with all minorities remaining underrepresented. This is a huge blessing for those of us concerned about the shape of things to come. Irrespective of the degree of corruption the police manifest as an institution due to the political pressures already being placed on them, they will remain overwhelmingly white, and of working class and lower middle-class background. Their sympathies can therefore be expected to remain with HBP, and the degree of contempt and disgust the British bobby feels for MFC can only be expected to increase.

As with the police, so with the military. Muslims are massively underrepresented in the British military, with this too being a situation that the idiots at the Ministry of Defence are trying to ‘remedy’, with a similar degree of success. Trying to predict in any detail the likely deployments or attitudes of the military in the event of a serious breakdown of civil order between MFC and HBP is beyond the scope of this essay. Suffice it to say for the moment that it is highly unlikely that the rank and file of the military, having spent the last several years fighting Muslims across the world, will feel much sympathy for MFC. Nor can they be expected to be well-disposed to the idea of shooting their fellow white Britons to enhance the security of Muslims. Whether or not the officer class would be likely to pass along orders from their civilian superiors to engage in such shooting is a question I will have to leave to others to answer. Personally, I consider it unlikely. Forcing one’s troops to disobey one’s orders by ordering them to shoot their own people in their own country is an activity that no right-minded officer is likely to engage in.

Lastly, there is the question of the likely activities of ex-military personnel during conflict between HBP and MFC. At the risk of stating the obvious, it seems improbable that such folk would sit around watching the growing disorder on the television when they could be ‘contributing’ to it themselves. No longer constrained by chain of command, quite possibly full of hostility towards Muslims, certainly missing the smell of cordite in their new 9-to-5 office jobs where ‘combat’ consists of firing elastic bands at people, and with old military networks and know-how still in place, ex-military personnel are likely to flood into any organizations promising a chance to stick it to the believers on the shores of Albion itself. And there will be tens of thousands of them, many of them, one would imagine, in the police. If those in government tasked with considering these matters (as opposed to those tasked with singing the glories of our newfound diversity) are not having sleepless nights over this, then they are not doing their jobs properly.

In contrast, Muslims have virtually no one in the UK with any conventional military experience. The Muslim way of war consisting largely of car bombings and throat-cuttings, and we must expect these to be the most commonly-used tactics during what is to come. However, in contrast with the strict rules of engagement that apply in Iraq and Afghanistan, tribal conflict on home soil will be a largely gloves-off affair. HBP responses to such Muslim attacks are likely to be conducted with a robust disregard for the Geneva Convention, to which MFC is not a signatory anyway.

International Networks/Support

During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Ulster Volunteer Force (one of the two main loyalist paramilitary groups) suffered severe weapons procurement difficulties, largely as a consequence of the lack of ideological allies outside of Northern Ireland. Their attempts to procure the equipment they needed to advance their war against the IRA often foundered on the mercenary nature of international arms dealers, who would take their money then fail, in whatever fashion, to deliver the weaponry. In contrast, the IRA enjoyed two sources of genuine support in this regard during the Troubles. One nationalist, one ideological, they were the Irish-American population and the Libyan regime of Colonel Gaddafi respectively.

In contrast with the difficult position of the UVF, there is a huge, gradually unfolding wave of hostility and alarm with respect to Islam not only across the whole of Europe, but also across the United States, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Canada and Australia. Israel and India are two other countries which appear to have their own ‘issues’ with Islam, and surely contain factions who would not be averse to seeing a blow struck against it in the UK or any other European country. What this means is that intelligence, propaganda, funding, personnel exchanges and the procurement of war materiel on the part of anti-Muslim non-state actors will increasingly come to be distributed across a vast swathe of the world with massive trade and transport links, substantial cultural, historical, and racial ties, and large concentrations of educated and wealthy people.

Even in Europe alone, there is already a thicket of countries with vocal anti-Islamic parties and organizations, and the stirrings and rumblings of less orthodox resistance to the ongoing process of Islamization. The almost perfect overlap of concerns, dangers, and likely responses will make the formation of international networks amongst these parties inevitable. A situation may be reached in which the difficulty facing anti-Muslim paramilitaries is not how to procure weapons, but exactly what to choose and whom to accept it from.

Muslims are in a slightly different position in this regard. There are extant Muslim criminal networks in place throughout Europe, be they looser or tighter, which are already cooperating to some extent in their various criminal activities. These gangs will already have smuggling operations in place for shipping, for example, stolen cars out of Europe and weapons and drugs in. It is highly probable that they will be very heavily involved in logistical, financial, and operational aspects of the Muslim side of any widespread tribal violence that ensues in Europe. Indeed, they may well end up taking a central role, in contrast to the probable central role of ex-military, rogue military, and rogue police elements on the British side.

Ease of Identification

Proselytisation efforts notwithstanding, the Muslim population in the UK still consists overwhelmingly of peoples who are ethnically foreign. Well aware of the degree of scrutiny this brings down upon them, they seem of late to have started trying to recruit people from other ethnicities. Germaine Lindsay, one of the four 7/7 bombers, was of Jamaican origin; Richard Reid, the now-infamous shoebomber, the son of an English mother and a Jamaican father; and Nicky Reilly, the failed Exeter bomber, white British. This development notwithstanding, certain regularities of appearance, name and country of origin will continue to make Muslims stand out from Europeans, particularly the most ideologically and politically important ones.

In contrast, Britons determined to oppose the Islamization of their country by fair means or foul will not be physically identifiable as belonging to any group worthy of concern. Muslims in the UK can be profiled to a greater or lesser extent, but ‘profiling’ the British population of Britain will not be possible.

Cultural Barriers to Violence

There is only one clear disadvantage that Europeans will possess with respect to law enforcement, and it is one of the likely consequences of what one might call the unimaginability of violent or vigilante action for many of those Europeans. It is, in some sense, the reverse of the culturally sealed nature of the Muslim community, as outlined above.

It is, of course, a great thing to live in a country in which the rule of law obtains, and in which the authorities do, on the whole, a good job of maintaining law and order, helping people to live in peace and prosperity. But one of the consequences of this is that any sort of vigilante action becomes borderline inconceivable for the overwhelming majority of the population. ‘They’, the authorities, the government, the people upstairs, will always take care of any problem, even when it is clear that ‘they’ created the problem in the name of their social engineering goals, that ‘they’ are not about to admit their own culpability, and that ‘they’ are willing to identify their own people as the source of all difficulties and act accordingly if that is what it takes to try and control the situation.

Even those not convinced of the omnipotence and benevolence of the state will, on the whole, have lived lives in which major criminality and violence have played no part. It will not be a simple matter for such people, many with homes, careers, families, and other things to lose, to step over the line into vigilantism or paramilitary activity. Even providing financial, logistical, PR, or intelligence-gathering support may be a bridge too far for many who are otherwise concerned about Islam. Of course, this resistance to involvement will weaken as the conflict escalates, often in response to specific events or incidents (as happened with support for the IRA after Bloody Sunday). The point to be made here is that, at least at the onset of major hostilities, a far greater fraction of Muslims can be expected to pass the psychological threshold to participating in these activities due to the following factors:

1.

Their brute tribalism, and tribal hostility and contempt for the British people

2.

Their contempt for British law, evinced by their crime rates and incarceration rates

3.

The savagery and degeneracy of their cultures (for first-generation immigrants) and parent cultures (for second and later-generation immigrants)

4.

Their personal and historic (i.e. cultural) lack of acquaintance with the rule of law, a strong and fairhanded state, and civic identity

5.

Their (accurate) awareness of themselves as minorities and their acute vulnerability should conflict break out

There is a second advantage for MFC in this regard. The high barriers to vigilante violence among HBP will not only reduce the fraction of them prepared to engage in such violence, it is also likely to increase their unease at the idea of others amongst them engaging in it, and therefore the probability of them informing on those of their fellow Britons who do. This is a subtle point, and one upon which there will be legitimate disagreement. Let us consider the issue from the Muslim perspective.

The general hostility that many Muslims in the UK feel to their host country is well known to even the most casual observer of these matters. Though this hostility has many unfortunate effects, the one that is most obviously relevant to the discussion here is the larger margin for error that it will grant to Muslims interested in planning and carrying out some sort of terrorist on British soil.

One of the critical moments for any type of would-be terrorist organization is surely that moment at which it approaches a potential recruit and asks him (it probably will be a him) whether he is interested in joining. How exactly the offer is phrased is undoubtedly a matter of personal taste, but the key point here is that there must be some point at which a line is crossed, and at which it is conveyed to the potential recruit that the recruiter is a member of a terrorist organization.

There is no one way of guessing what the likelihood of such an offer being accepted is. But if it is not accepted, what happens then? Of course, the side making the offer is likely to simply let the matter drop there, perhaps pretending that it was only made in jest or that the party they attempted to recruit misunderstood their intentions. But the side receiving the offer is now faced with a choice of sorts: to inform the authorities or keep their new knowledge about the affiliations of their acquaintance to themselves. What then, is the probability of them deciding on the former? Again, there is no way of providing a definitive answer to this question, but it seems reasonable to suppose that many Muslims will refrain from informing on other Muslims involved in terrorist activities, especially given that opinion polls conducted in the UK have suggested that it is so. If this speculation is correct, it constitutes a big handicap for the security services trying to infiltrate such groups, all other things being equal. Muslims guerillas may well be able to swim in the sea of MFC more easily than their British counterparts can swim amongst HBP. Whether this will actually prove to be the case is an empirical question that cannot yet be answered with confidence.

Degree of Pre-Infiltration

I suggested above that the ability of the security forces to keep a lid on rapidly escalating MFC-HBP violence would be extremely limited. Of course, one could argue that this would work to the advantage of Muslims just as much as to the advantage of Europeans, but there is an important reason why this is not so. I am no authority on the ins and outs of intelligence work vis-à-vis Muslim communities in Europe, but one thing is passably clear from the very small number of successful attacks and very large number of disrupted terrorist plots: Muslim communities in Europe must be riddled with security service assets and/or severely compromised with respect to investigation in other regards. There is simply no other way that so many plots could be disrupted. Not all Muslim would-be terrorists are stupid enough to try and buy ten gallons of hydrogen peroxide from a hairdresser.

Clearly, this degree of infiltration is not something that can be obtained overnight, or without a substantial investment of time, money, manpower, and political capital. To rephrase, the security services must have already sunk a great deal of their available operational capital in infiltrating MFC, and this investment is one of extremely low liquidity. They cannot cash in an asset in Hizb ut-Tahrir’s UK branch and use the proceeds to buy an equivalent asset in the (presumably) fictional Albion Liberation Front. If they wish to similarly infiltrate the loosely-knit web of European anti-Muslim paramilitary groups that will, I predict, emerge in the years to come, they would have to start almost entirely from scratch except insofar as such groups are part of the conventional extreme right, which is undoubtedly already infiltrated to some extent. What this means is that the MFC would be likely to both constitute and remain a much more heavily infiltrated and therefore compromised community than its enemy, HBP, in the event of the outbreak of mutually inflicted tribal violence.

Availability and Types of Targets

It is to be observed that virtually all paramilitary organizations have operational constraints imposed upon them by the amount and type of violence that their supporting populations are prepared to tolerate. Even an organization as ruthless and unconcerned with civilian casualties as Al-Qaeda eventually ran into trouble for the massive civilian casualties it inflicted in Iraq, on Sunnis, Shias, men, women, and children. Other, more restrained organizations (such as the IRA) took trouble, at least some of the time, to choose non-civilian targets, to give warnings shortly before bombs were to detonate to facilitate evacuation of the relevant areas, and so on.

In the event of serious hostilities between HBP and MFC in the UK, British paramilitaries will have to consider their targets carefully so as not to lose political and other types of support. It would be futile to try and examine this matter in detail, as the political state of play in such a scenario cannot be predicted. However, there is one observation that can already be made with confidence, and that is that Britain is already a target-rich environment for those who would target Muslim actors without bringing an unacceptable degree of opprobrium down on their hands, even in the initial stages of conflict before polarization was complete.

Let me be more explicit, and provisionally divide potential Muslim targets up into three categories, in order of decreasing whackability (my apologies for the technical language).

Category 1 - A significant fraction of the British population would be happy to see these people get whacked, and those who really objected would be few and far between

Muslim gang members and drug dealers

Released Muslim criminals, especially rapists, murderers, and the like

Pakistani pimping gangs and accomplices in the North of England

Openly seditious Muslims/members of seditious Muslim organizations

Members of British-located outlets/subsidiaries of problematic organizations with headquarters abroad, such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood

Foreign jihadists in the UK, allowed to remain for whatever reason

Category 2 - A reasonably large fraction of the British population would be happy to see these people get whacked, but there would also be substantial objection from another large fraction

Category 3 - A hardcore minority of the British population would be happy to see these people get whacked, but the majority, including many broadly on the anti-Islam side, would have serious reservations or express complete outrage

Muslim petty criminals

Muslim illegal immigrants

Beneath Category 3 we would have unobjectionable and blameless Muslim civilians, violence against whom would overwhelmingly be condemned by the British people at least in the early stages of conflict. Of course, if the conflict became unpleasant enough, violence against random Muslims might be supported. But that is another matter.

The significance of the above lies in the fact that British anti-Muslim paramilitaries could liberally hack away at certain parts of the MFC without particular concern over the possibility of a damaging PR backlash. Category 1 Muslims will earn little sympathy irrespective of what happens to them, and Category 2 Muslims perhaps not a great deal more. Whacking Category 3 Muslims or below could start to cause problems, but staying away from them will keep violence within a zone that will not start to dangerously compromise support for the paramilitary group in question. Those who are unclear on this point should research, for example, the difference between the Warrenpoint bombings (when the IRA succeeded in killing 18 members of the British Army) and the Enniskillen bombings (when they succeeded in killing one off-duty policeman and ten civilians, massively to their own detriment).

HBP paramilitaries will therefore have myriad opportunities to polarize relations between HBP and MFC in the UK and take the situation beyond the point of no return, without incurring the opprobrium directed at those who kill innocent civilians. Furthermore, there are so many targets that they could continue to focus on them even if MFC started to engage in random sectarian killings in response. The response of the British state to such killings on the part of MFC would probably be more than sufficient to deal with such a development.

If MFC wishes to retaliate, it will have to do so via random killings and bombings as mentioned in the previous paragraph because it has no equivalent targets. The only targets they will have that will not bring the hostility of the entire British people and establishment down on their heads will be each other. If I were a Muslim trying to construct my own list of targets equivalent to the above, who would I put on it? The Conservative Party? UKIP? The BNP? The Centre for Social Cohesion and Douglas Murray? The police? The EDL? Prominent critics of Islam? Salman Rushdie? Campaigners against Islam, like SIOE and its leader, Steven Gash? Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox, who invited one Geert Wilders to the House of Lords? Any attack, successful or otherwise, on any of these targets (including the BNP), would repel and outrage the entire country. MFC will have no ‘elbow room’ in this regard.

Objectives and Plausibility of Objectives

The last great advantage that HBP will have over MFC in the event of major hostilities between them is that HBP will have open to them formal and informal objectives both legitimate and plausible, whereas this will be much less true for MFC. Let us consider this important point in detail.

MFC is a very recent graft, a graft that has been inflicted on HBP without their consent, and through the perfidy and treason of their political class. Its roots in the UK are shallow, and its disproportionately criminal, parasitic, seditious, terrorist, and ideologically hostile and subversive nature make those roots much shallower in effect than those of, say, the Hindus, whose history in the UK is of essentially the same length. Very few British people would walk down a street full of Pakistanis, or Somalis, or Algerians and feel in any meaningful way that the people around them were now ‘just a part’ of the British people. No good thing that exists in the UK, not one, exists because Muslims in the UK created it.

In contrast, and at the risk of stating the extremely obvious, the British people have been in Britain rather a long time. Moreover, every good thing that exists in Britain exists because, and only because, they created it. As a consequence there is no meaningful claim that Muslims can make to Britain, anything in it or a single square inch of its territory. Contrast this with, for example, the centuries-long presence of the Protestant British settlers in Northern Ireland. Whatever one’s take on Irish history, it can hardly be argued that they are some blip within it, and even the IRA never argued against the presence of these Protestants in what they would call the Six Counties. Rather, they argued against the political authority of the British state in Ireland, and for the creation of a united Ireland with substantial regional autonomy enjoyed by its component parts.

Now, it is my contention that the British can argue in favour of a relatively Muslim-free Britain, and against the presence of any substantial numbers of believing Muslims in their country at all. Even failing that, they can argue against further Muslim immigration, for the deportation of Muslims without British citizenship, for the deportation of criminal Muslims, for the deportation of sharia and jihad-supporters, for the withdrawal of benefits from Muslims, and so on. Many would think these political objectives are hopelessly implausible, but I feel we are not that far away from seeing them enter the political mainstream in more and more European countries, as they have already started to do in the Netherlands. Either way, they are real, concrete objectives that are all physically plausible and will all eventually be demanded.

MFC has no such equivalent goals. They cannot demand the deportation of Britons, reduced immigration of Britons, fewer Britons sucking tax revenues out of them, or the like, because these demands are all meaningless. They cannot even demand partition and independence, as it could not possibly be granted. They would not be economically viable, their Muslim territory would simply be besieged, savaged, and destroyed by the non-state actors already in the conflict, and any members of the government trying to grant independence would be swinging from lamp-posts by the end of the day. Besides, what would we give them? The North of England? No, partition is clearly inconceivable. The only meaningful demands Muslims could make would be for more of the same: more immigration, more money, more appeasement and more sharia. But of course, it will have been precisely these things that will have precipitated violent conflict in the first place, so such conflict would only be further inflamed by granting more.

Of course, Muslims being Muslims, there will be the usual maniacs who think they can beat the whole of Britain in a civil war and somehow benefit from it. But in reality, the increasingly precarious status of Muslims in Europe, already clearly visible at a psychological level, will only increase massively when real conflict breaks out. Muslims will then have no good options left to them. They may demand protection, but there is not much more they can ask for. What this means is that there is no obvious way the British government can ‘break’ in favour of MFC, but many ways it can do so in favour of HBP. Concessions are likely to be granted in one direction only when things start to disintegrate.

30
comments:

1. The urban concentration of Muslims gives them a high chance of being able to obtain some sort of local dominance in key areas. How long this dominance lasts is another question, but it is probable that certain areas will hemorrhage non-Muslims fairly rapidly.

While at first blush this might seem like some sort of advantage, it most certainly is not. Subsequent “ghettoes” would de facto cluster Muslims into highly concentrated areas prone to devastating arson attacks and easy sniper actions from its outer boundaries.

Moreover, interruption of utilities and roadways would cause hardship far more quickly due to limited resources in such densely populated locales. (see item two)

3. … Urban areas are so saturated with CCTV cameras and will have such a short police response time that great risks will be taken by those who engage in paramilitary activity in these areas at first, be they Muslim or British.

The irony of this situation lies in how Muslims have rather vigorously worked to establish these selfsame areas as “no go zones”. Due to repeated attacks upon them, municipal authorities already have demonstrated a noticeable reluctance to respond in these Muslim enclaves and, once the “festivities” begin, their hesitation will only increase. Thus will the typical Islamic hostility towards outsiders along with their usual lack of assimilation and integration finally come home to roost with a vengeance.

4. The urban concentration of Muslims and the drastically reduced general mobility they will suffer when things start to get ‘hot’ will be a huge disadvantage.

In addition, as resources like food and weapons begin to dry up, those in rural areas will enjoy far greater operational latitude with respect to gathering, storing and concealing such materials.

5. … Furthermore, the technical expertise required to build and maintain infrastructure of this sort lies overwhelmingly in the hands of the British.

This is where the traditional Muslim disdain for manual labor and difficult-to-obtain technical expertise will prove to be a major drawback. While Islamic terrorists in these areas may have somewhat of a head start in knowing how to assemble bombs and deploy them, that lead will erode quite swiftly as HBP go up the learning curve. As noted in item six, few such limitations will apply to rurally-based operations.

MFC has, thankfully, relatively low concentrations of people in professions which would provide privileged access of the sort that would be useful to would-be terrorists.

Again, Muslims have only themselves to thank for this. Decades of tacitly accepting Islamic terrorism without adequate protest will see the few Muslims in such useful positions experience near-continuous surveillance or monitoring of their access to information and materiel.

As with the police, so with the military. Muslims are massively underrepresented in the British military, with this too being a situation that the idiots at the Ministry of Defence are trying to ‘remedy’, with a similar degree of success.

Again, the highly polarized nature of Muslim activities and the entire purpose of their presence in foreign lands like Britain make participation in law enforcement or military service more than a little problematic. This goes well beyond the typical Muslim allergy to hard work and honestly earned wages. There is a strong element of political and cultural enmity that results in self-exclusion from such forces that will instantly turn into more than just a momentary inconvenience once things begin to heat up a bit.

If those in government tasked with considering these matters (as opposed to those tasked with singing the glories of our newfound diversity) are not having sleepless nights over this, then they are not doing their jobs properly.

The most common remedy for such sleeplessness seems to lie in the government’s accelerated campaign of prosecuting “hate speech” and other such thought crimes being committed by the HBP. Look for this Multicultural Gestapo to draw almost immediate fire from indigenous Brits from the very onset of this keruffle.

The Muslim way of war consisting largely of car bombings and throat-cuttings, and we must expect these to be the most commonly-used tactics during what is to come. However, in contrast with the strict rules of engagement that apply in Iraq and Afghanistan, tribal conflict on home soil will be a largely gloves-off affair.

As noted earlier, most likely there also will be quite the lingering hostility as Britain’s institutional and public memory recollects the 7-7 atrocity and other Islamic terrorist attacks. Look for more than a little of the “payback” mentality as reprisals against conventional terrorist attacks that are implemented by the MFC.

In contrast with the difficult position of the UVF, there is a huge, gradually unfolding wave of hostility and alarm with respect to Islam not only across the whole of Europe, but also across the United States, and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Canada and Australia. Israel and India are two other countries which appear to have their own ‘issues’ with Islam, and surely contain factions who would not be averse to seeing a blow struck against it in the UK or any other European country.

Again, Islam’s consistent last place standing in the International Ideology Beauty Contest™ will see more than a few vindictive contestants demonstrate their displeasure at how Muslims have so forcefully elbowed aside numerous other more legitimate contenders on many previous occasions.

You reasonably assume that the mussies will take up arms and car bombs. But what if they don't and take the long look - perhaps a generation or two - and wage jihad through 'lawfare', aka 'stealth-jihad'. All they need to do is hunker down and let demographics increase their presence until armed attack becomes more logistically sound, especially when the hands of the police, military and other governmental institutions are tied behind their backs through lawfare. I do not believe them to be that clever, they seem to enjoy death and the visuals of blood and mayhem playing across the screen far more than winning.

Britain's very civility will work against them, at least initially. Ghandi does not appear to be on the jihadis' reading list, but if it did....

Good luck to England in the future years. France seems to be headed to the same problem years ahead of England. My Dad used to say a smart person learns from their mistakes; a really smart person learns from others' mistakes. Keep your eyes and ears open.

What this means is that intelligence, propaganda, funding, personnel exchanges and the procurement of war materiel on the part of anti-Muslim non-state actors will increasingly come to be distributed across a vast swathe of the world with massive trade and transport links, substantial cultural, historical, and racial ties, and large concentrations of educated and wealthy people.

The flip side of this situation is that bad actors like Iran will only continue to inspire ever greater hostility in the form of embargoes and similar retaliatory countermeasures that can only serve to restrict any importation of weapons and materiel for Britain’s MFC.

This development notwithstanding, certain regularities of appearance, name and country of origin will continue to make Muslims stand out from Europeans, particularly the most ideologically and politically important ones.

Once again, this is where Islam’s habitual case of overreach will work against it. In their towering hubris, Muslims have breathed their own ideological exhaust for so long that they now possess an unshakable belief in their infallibility. These delusions of adequacy will contribute to premature actions plus a large variety of other poorly planned and badly executed maneuvers.

But one of the consequences of this is that any sort of vigilante action becomes borderline inconceivable for the overwhelming majority of the population.

A few more 7-7 atrocities and assorted car bombings will tend to rectify any such problem. Trust to Islam to do its utmost in assisting this process, just as they have done so many times in the past.

If MFC wishes to retaliate, it will have to do so via random killings and bombings as mentioned in the previous paragraph because it has no equivalent targets.

Although seemingly rather obvious, this is a point whose significance cannot be overstated. Islamic terrorism is a proverbial one trick pony. It goes after soft targets almost without fail and its entire methodology is designed for that specific purpose. It is precisely because of their asymmetrical strategy that Muslims have incurred such worldwide opprobrium and for good reason. Any continuation of this tactic will only serve to further polarize the British population in general and extend the list of acceptable targets well into category three, if not far beyond it.

Simply put, most people are fed up to the teeth with Islam’s thuggish predations and just a few of its terrorist mass murders in any given location will be enough to erase all vestiges of public sympathy.

As a consequence there is no meaningful claim that Muslims can make to Britain, anything in it or a single square inch of its territory.

However remarkable it may seem, none of this prevents Muslims from doing exactly that.

MFC has no such equivalent goals. They cannot demand the deportation of Britons, reduced immigration of Britons, fewer Britons sucking tax revenues out of them, or the like, because these demands are all meaningless. They cannot even demand partition and independence, as it could not possibly be granted.

This, more than likely, explains the extraordinary belligerence displayed by so many Muslim immigrants. They know damn well how their case is entirely without merit and any claim to they make to legitimate citizenship is so largely unearned that it would be comical were it not so deeply offensive. Consequently, their sole modus operandi is to play the bully and that entire charade wore out its welcome all too long ago.

Of course, Muslims being Muslims, there will be the usual maniacs who think they can beat the whole of Britain in a civil war and somehow benefit from it. But in reality, the increasingly precarious status of Muslims in Europe, already clearly visible at a psychological level, will only increase massively when real conflict breaks out. Muslims will then have no good options left to them.

Yet none of this seems to penetrate the average Muslim immigrant as they go about alienating every host culture that they fasten onto. So convinced are they of their own entitlement and superiority, any doubts as to their collective pre-eminence will most likely dawn upon them only when they are finally crowded into cattle cars.

The ultimate destination of those subpar mass transit vehicles will depend almost entirely upon how successful Muslims have been at inflicting their usual mass murder. The greater their success the more likely that it will not be deportation centers but, instead, chimney’d camps that await them. As always:

David L: You reasonably assume that the mussies will take up arms and car bombs. But what if they don't and take the long look - perhaps a generation or two - and wage jihad through 'lawfare', aka 'stealth-jihad'.

Never in its entire history has Islam demonstrated the least inclination to take the "long look". The closest thing to it is the Arab-Israeli conflict and even there the terrorist attacks continue unabated.

Musims are so barely removed from their lengthy history of barbaric tribal practices that the Islamic mindset seems wholly incapable of abandoning its preference for endless slaughter and bloodshed.

Fish will ride bicycles and tire of it well before Muslims ever learn to take the "long look".

There is a fatal flaw in your thinking, if there is anything to acknowledge about the foe and never under estimate it is the "long look".

Bringing to this 1400 years war of attrition the attention span of a child is a failure not only to comprehend the mind of the foe but is a failure to engage the foe in complete war - it is the historical path to defeat.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is a classic war strategy of political and military attrition.

"...there must still be high concentrations of people in the military, the police, and the civil service who are appalled at what the cancer of Islam is doing to their country, and who will eventually end up being well-disposed to those who would strike back against Islam on British soil."

I think this, on the whole, is likely to be true.

But don't forget about the possibility of the EUROGENDFOR or some such EU force being brought in to quell those upstart Brits. I would think, though, that even Italian or Polish, etc., Eurogendfor officers would sympathize more with native Brits than with the Muslim invaders, but clearly they would sympathize less with Brits than a British force would do. (You can see why the EUrocrats would LUUUV to get North Africa into a union with Europe -- 'cause then they could bring in Algerian and Tunisian police forces to quell any troubles in Britian or the Netherlands or Germany....!)

Also, I don't like the thought of how many Muslims work at the UK's airports. I don't know what the percentages are, but anytime I travel through London or Manchester I look around me and just think, wow -- this is not good.

Another question that has to be asked is to what extent are anti-Islamic websites and blogs contributing to the radicalization of ordinary westerners. Is there a real possibility that westerners at some stage in the future will be so enrage with all the crime and atrocities carried out by radical Islamists that they read about on the net, that they’ll feel compelled to resort to violence and plan terrorist attacks to get back at these Islamists?

Al Qaeda has been very successful in their strategy of winning the “hearts and souls” of their followers through extensive use of internet sites and blogs. And today it’s probably fair to say that the term Al Qaeda is mostly applied to describe relatively small independent terror cells with only a handful of members, which has no or very little contact with other terrorist cells. Their motivation and anger seems to come from pro-Muslim internet sites and many of them seems to have taken it upon themselves to act against the west by means of terrorist attacks.

Zenster, how do you use snipers from a ghetto? You can snipe people that pass on my street. The building I live in is taller than the ones in front of me, but if I had a sniper, I could just kill people that pass on the street and people in the buildings that are about 500 meters away from me. Supposing that nobody retaliates or hides, I can kill 200 people at most. And if my movement is hindered outside of the ghetto, wha will I arson? My Muslim neighbour's car?

About bombs, if Muslims can do them, they're not that hard to make. It takes recruiting a few chemists in your movement and you're already way ahead of the Muslims. Besides, there are always the classic Molotov cocktails or whatever they're called. I think I could learn how to make one of those before my bed time tonight if I got my head into it. But I'm a peaceful girl like that and I don't care about making incendiary bottles. :) I'd rather ponder about how far Andromeda is from Earth and how if a civilization advanced enough to watch the Earth will be on it in 30 billion years, they'll be able to see me move about. lol

David, what you miss is that Muslims have to stay banded together in order to not become assimilated and give up Islam so the new Muslims will just be in the same areas. Also, lawfare began to piss people off, even though not as much as terrorist attacks, for the obvious reasons. I will take the European side if we wake up even if we would be a minority considering our monopoly on the things needed to win. They need more than two generations and if they wait that much, they are doomed because of the political triumphs of the cause that undermines them.

Eileen, since I know people who are in the military here, I can tell you that if another country's troops enter Romania and shoot native Romanians, the Romanian army will disregard orders and get out of the barracks. Actually, the generals will disregard the politicians and they will look at the troops as an invading force. Now, do you honestly believe that the British army can't crush the Tunisian police force, even if the UK's army was gutted like crazy? If you want to make te British army side with the British people, bring another country's army on British soil. And other Europeans army will refuse to occupy the UK. The only threat would be an US invasion ala Yugoslavia, but they won't be able to do it since the British army wouldn't be involved. But who knows with Obama as president?

kristisk, it takes some work to bypass people's cognitive dissonance, but once you do it...

"if another country's troops enter Romania and shoot native Romanians, the Romanian army will disregard orders and get out of the barracks"

That's what an army SHOULD do. This is somewhat off-topic for this particular article, but I want to make note of it - Auster has some commentary on the US military here:http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016113.html

The James N comment in particular is worth reading, and fits with everything I have seen from people who actually know the US military as opposed to engaging in wishful thinking and pedestalization of it. In short, the US military will follow orders as long as all the i's are dotted and t's crossed, regardless of what those orders are.

There's something to be said for a certain lack of discipline in one's military.

If hostilities broke out, Islam would call all worldwide muslims to join the British jihad. This could cause much more trouble than Britian could possibly contain. If Britian called on USA help, given corrent administration sympathies, the USA could come in on the side of Islam. Much like the recent Balkans where said idiot admin came in on the side against the Christians.

Rollory, soldiers will usually follow orders at first because that's what they're trained to do. They did so in my country too at first when they were ordered to fire into the crowds. When I say that the army won't follow orders, I don't mean that they will simply surrender their weapons and tell the government to go F itself. I mean, I don't know anyone in the US armed forces, but I do know people in my country's armed forces. But again, here the soldiers don't swear to defend the constitution first and foremost. The oath is to your nation and country foremost and you achieve it by respecting the country's laws and military rules. But yet again, my president isn't a traitor either and as the commander in chief... Still, I don't think that soldiers will just fire into their own countrymen endlessly. If it will come to choose in between committing genocide against their own people and respecting orders, you really think they will follow through? I mean, I doubt it considering that from what I heard from all the people I know with military experience they wouldn't do it and I chatted with people from other armies than my own. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm just making suppositions based on what I know. And what commissioned officers say isn't that important, I'm talking about the people that actually do the shooting.

Also, some other things to consider. Do you really think that the army will use it's full arsenal? I mean, that will lead to nobody supporting the troops or government. They would have to use mostly only infantry and marines and not only they'd be outnumbered, but they would be in uniform and easy to spot, while people who are against the government wouldn't just line up to fight them. I mean, sure, a civil war means that a lot of people will die and ideally, it shouldn't happen.

Another thing to consider is how the US government will pay the troops considering that they will basically be reduced to no income considering that a civil war would lead to the economy grinding to a halt, more or less.

4Symbols: There is a fatal flaw in your thinking, if there is anything to acknowledge about the foe and never under estimate it is the "long look".

Then please explain for our studio audience and all the folks at home exactly why it is that Muslims simply will not and, apparently, cannot shut the Hell up and refrain from fouling their nest wherever they go around the entire world.

If Muslims were taking the "long look", they would clamp down hard on they way their youth become urban predators and discourage people like Anjem Choudary from tipping their hand about instituting shari'a law throughout the land.

Bringing to this 1400 years war of attrition the attention span of a child is a failure not only to comprehend the mind of the foe but is a failure to engage the foe in complete war - it is the historical path to defeat.

If there is any group most emulating children, it is the multitudes of Islamic crybabies. I suggest that you examine my essays here at GoV in order to better appreciate the recommendations I make about long term strategies with respect to thwarting Islam's global jihad.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is a classic war strategy of political and military attrition.

By 1973, Arafat was a Soviet puppet (and would remain such until the fall of the USSR). His adjutants, including Mahmoud Abbas, were being trained by the KGB in guerrilla warfare, espionage, and demolition; and his ideologues had gone to North Vietnam to learn the propaganda Tao of Ho Chi Minh.

The PLO Discovers “Wars of National Liberation”

As early as 1964, Arafat had sent Abu Jihad (later the leader of the PLO’s military operations) to North Vietnam to study the strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare as waged by Ho Chi Minh. At this time, Fatah also translated the writings of North Vietnam’s General Nguyen Giap, as well as the works of Mao and Che Guevara, into Arabic.

[Ho Chi Minh’s] chief strategist, General Giap, made it clear to Arafat and his lieutenants that in order to succeed, they too needed to redefine the terms of their struggle. Giap’s counsel was simple but profound: the PLO needed to work in a way that concealed its real goals, permitted strategic deception, and gave the appearance of moderation:

“Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. [emphasis added]

It took extensive re-education to make Arafat understand how badly misplaced was his posture as a Lion of Islam™. While, to a certain extent, Muslims have successfully recast themselves as victims all over the world, at the same time they seem congenitally incapable of simply suspending their abject thuggery long enough for the demographic process of "slow jihad" to take its course.

Do not underestimate your enemy.

If I was doing that no mention would have been made of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Again, even in that situation and after countless billions of dollars, the so-called Palestinians have squat to show for it as they continue to parade their self-inflicted sores upon the world stage.

Muslims have repeatedly shown themselves as being unable to stop the genocidal violence and terrorism that will eventually bring about their collective doom. That is not the “long look” by any definition.

"Never in its entire history has Islam demonstrated the least inclination to take the 'long look'." (Zenster)

Unfortunately, this is wrong. It might be true in the sense that knee-jerk reactions by Muslims often trump long-term strategy and planning. In other words, Muslim lack the Western long look.

But how long is the Western long look nowadays ? For governments, is it the four or five years separating one election from the other ? If that, because the attention span of a government is now closer to a few months, if not weeks, due to changing concerns in the public opinion, and to the increasingly short shelf-life of promises ?

For businesses, is it the two to three years separating one CEO from the next ? The few months separating one financial report from the next ? The milliseconds separating one automated transaction from the next on financial markets ?

For individuals, is it the few months separating one version of the iPhone from the next ? The few seconds separating one twitter from the other ?

That does not strike me as particularly long-term.

On the other hand, Muslims have been taking the long look of inch'Allah-ism for 1400 years now. It means the militant among them are ready to endure hardship and failure for decades before they reach their aim (which they are convinced Allah will hand to them). They are ready for lifelong sacrifices, even if it means success will come long after their own death.

Given the right circumstances, what seems to a Western mind as extended stretches of nonchalant behaviour, separated by irrational flares of short-lived rage, can be much more efficient, in the... long term, that the so-called long-term look of contemporary Western society, where one set of Powerpoint slides flushes the previous one into oblivion.

It might not get the Internet designed or fighter jets built, but it can sure conquer and ruin civilisations.

Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column. They too would be prisoners of the same dynamic, and they too have weapons of mass destruction.

... The greatest threat to Muslims is radical Islam; and the greatest threat of all is a radical Islam armed with weapons of mass destruction.

... It is supremely ironic that the survival of the Islamic world should hinge on an American victory in the War on Terror, the last chance to prevent that terrible day in which all the decisions will have already been made for us.

Islam is doomed, all that has yet to be determined is exactly who it is that pulls the trigger.

There is no compelling reason why our world should tolerate the presence and continued predations of Islam. Someone will run out of patience with this Muslim nonsense long, long before Islam ever gains sufficient military might to become any sort of formidable global power.

Zenster; "...difficult-to-obtain technical expertise will prove to be a major drawback (for Muslims)."

Yes and No: that didn't prevent them attacking the Twin Towers. It only needs one or two with access and the the technology then works FOR them - right down to the fact that the towers finally collapsed because of their exo-skeleton structure (a bonus factor that I'm quite sure the flying nutters did not know about). Had the towers not collapsed totally and spectacularly, the "mission" would have looked much less "successful", so to speak. We've really reached the point where one can say "a culture that can't invent the aeroplane shouldn't be allowed to board one". Let alone access nuclear weaponry.

As a very angry Brit, I try to keep my anger in check and think objectively at our chances of wining a civil war in Britain, I think we would need a hell of a lot of luck on our side. This is not the Britain of the second world war. When we started the Second world war we had money we had energy and we had the will. We came dam near to losing it on several occasions. The battle of the Atlantic stripped us of our wealth, we were losing a million tons of shipping every month that could not be replaced until the American's came into the war, the only replacement we had was shipping from the defeated countries of Europe who were on the high seas at the time and came over to our side. We came within two weeks of starvation at one point. If the attrition had carried on at the rate that it was we would have had to give in. America gave us credit with the lend lease act. We fought the later part of the war on American credit. Why because we were out of money. If America had not given it too us we could have not paid our way and would have to have surrendered. These are facts not fiction. One of the strengths we had was that apart from oil we were energy independent. Britain at that time ran on coal both industry and transport. When American entered the war and started to send troops over too Britain we were able to transfer youngsters who had been called up into the mines to maintain production. The were called Bevin boys after the Socialist minister of labour in the war cabinet called Ernest Bevin. The socialist in the war cabinet were not the scum we see today but good old British patriots. Britain did not fall out to the ranks of the great powers until 1947 when the blizzard in the early part of the year brought the railways to a standstill and we could not provide the coal for our factories and blast furnaces, as the blast furnaces cooled the roofs fell in and it was 6 months before we could get them going again and British industry ground to a halt. We had to get a loan from America for 1,500 million dollars to see us through. It was the straw that broke the camels back we paid off the last of that loan in Sept 2007. officially the last of the war loans. The Brits were one of the few countries to pay back what we owed.

Now we are even in a worse state. Our country has a population of 60,000,000 of which we can feed one half to two thirds that is if we have the money to import the fertilizes for our agriculture. Most of our mines are closed. There were over 100 mines in Yorkshire when I worked there there are only 4 now. We produce 40,000,000 tons of coal. Our industry what is left of it runs on natural gas and oil which we now have to import from Russia and the Middle East. Like America our industry has been decimated and sold off too the highest bidder irrespective of color or belief. The bloated financial sector the city is dependent on foreign money, to function. He who pays the piper calls the tune why do you think that the Government is pushing Sharia finance her in Britain.

A Civil war an oxymoron if ever there was one, against, our uncivil muslim population would be a disaster. The muslims at the moment hold the world by its energy testicles, and until that can be rectified we are in no position to fight back. If a civil war started we would need outside help just to survive and I seriously doubt we would get it from the American Government. I was never a great fan of Bush but I certainly hold out no great hopes that while Obama is President we will get help from America. A Boxed CD set as a present to our Prime Minister, however despicable he may be, has snub written all over it, and sending the bust of Winston Churchill back shows nothing but contempt. He who controls the energy has the power. I am certain that there will be an uncivil war in Britain in the not too distant future but it will have to be under circumstances of general world chaos when the OIC have something else to think about there own survival.

Yorkshireminer beat me to the punch. He is exactly right. Just consider the recent release of the Lockerbie bomber! He was released to assure continued flow of the ME oil which runs our economies. Almost any concession will be made to keep this oil flowing. Britian is literally over a (an oil) barrel. No help can be expected from the Obama administration and--although I know little of British military capabilities--I doubt that Britain alone could/would take over ME oil fields (which, in any case, would be blown up or set on fire by Muslims).

Have to disagree that the British State will be on the side of native Britons. The left in Britian controls the State and the media. It is sympathetic to the Muslims and can provide another fifth column, just as white leftists supported radical black terrorists in the U.S. and in South Africa. Just look at the anti-facists who attack the BNP and EDL at demonstrations. They are mostly white and extremely violent. Add to this Irish terrorists and Scottish separatists who will be doing the enemy of my enemy is my friend thing, and you can see Scotland being a free zone for Islamists. The Scots hate the English more than they fear or hate Muslims. The Muslim terrorists will travel and conspire freely in Scottish areas and the Republican areas of Northern Ireland and perhaps in the Republic itself.

Indeed an interesting read. My question is now, when will you predict something like this (a civilwar, violent clashes in larger scales) to start? 10, 20, 50 years from now, or sooner? And will it happen in GB first, or are any other European countries more likely to be the first where a civilwar breaks out? - Which one? And when civilwar do breaks out somewhere in Europe, would it be fare to think that it could have some kind of domino effect and start similar "fires" in other European countries?Please share your thoughts here.

"do you honestly believe that the British army can't crush the Tunisian police force, even if the UK's army was gutted like crazy? If you want to make te British army side with the British people, bring another country's army on British soil."

I can see the incoming planes of Tunisians being met by British anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, and left to burn on the tarmac. A few trucks or tankers parked on other runways will force the following planes to go elsewhere, perhaps to Orly to refuel for the trip back to Tunis.

"Our country has a population of 60,000,000 of which we can feed one half to two thirds that is if we have the money to import the fertilizes for our agriculture."

That many fewer, once the Muslims are gone. And don't forget that the USA will sell food to anyone, even Russia and Cuba.

Bitter loud mouthed muslims like Anjem Choudary can be utilised to clear the path for sweet talking moderates.

Arafat was no one man show if the west succumbed to a propaganda strategy (more fool them) then that is a defeat and the question it begs where was MI6 or the CIA, sleeping on the job or watching Sesame Street, P is for propaganda, W is for War, D is for defeat.

The West has not only fought to cede them territory as in southeastern Europe but has betrayed Israel to make them surrender territory, not only a war of attrition but of subversion get the enemy to do your bidding and get them to pay countless billions of dollars for the privilege.

Not bad for a dim-witted foe and let us not forget the territory they hold in every european city.

You have to subtract all the members of the Labour Party, Scottish Nationalist Party and the Lib-Dems. That is alot of white people who will be either neutral against the natives or actively supporting the Muslim insurgency. Add to that the PC types in the police and army, and the receipt for a Muslim dictatorship is real.

You are missing a very important point. They will not attack while Europeans have the advantage. They have more children than Britons, a lot more. They'll just wait until they're the majority (and have all the positions of power). Then they will go about "cleansing", like they do it on their own soil.

Is high levels of Muslim immigration A) an accident, B) a successful plot by Muslims, or C) been promoted by the British government and beyond?

If A) then the government can easily fixed the problem once reality sets in. B) again the government will willing fix the problem once their PC coloured glasses are taken off.

but if it C) then we are in trouble, and to talk of civil war with Muslims is to be predicting the wrong battle and to be fighting the wrong war- that is unless you want to be used like pawns in a bigger game of chess.

Why do I say the Muslim immigration has been deliberately engendered (but not by Muslims) , it is because one country might make the mistakes of A) and B) but not all the EU countries, plus Norway, Sweden, Russia, and even the USA. In other words international collusion and subterfuge must be at work here.

9/11 Conspiracy sites will never talk about Muslim immigration, and it seems that ant-Jehad never talk of 9/11. Both of you need to join up the obvious and connected dots. Especially when speculating about Muslim terrorism and the potential of Western terrorism.